How Does RCC View Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism?

[runningdude]

If you are asking if the RCC views Anglicans differently than it does Orthodox because the RCC recognizes that Orthodox possess valid, if illicit, Orders, and considers that the Anglicans do not, the answer is yes.

Beyond that, I don’t know what you might be asking.

GKC

The Catholic Church does not consider Orthodox Orders to be illicit. That is a gravely inaccurate representation of the Catholic position.

 

[GKC]

The Catholic Church does not consider Orthodox Orders to be illicit. That is a gravely inaccurate representation of the Catholic position.

I have heard this both ways, with illicit being the most common. What is your support for that? I’m always interested in learning stuff.

GKC

 

[FrDavid96]

I have heard this both ways, with illicit being the most common. What is your support for that? I’m always interested in learning stuff.

GKC

The reason is that Catholics recognize and respect Orthodox Canon Law (with the exception of allowing 2nd marriages). So, from the Catholic perspective, the ordinations are not “illicit.”

Their ordinations are considered perfectly licit within the Orthodox context, however, the Orthodox clergy do not have “the clerical state” within the Catholic Church.

(on coffee break, won’t be back for several hours).

 

[GKC]

The reason is that Catholics recognize and respect Orthodox Canon Law (with the exception of allowing 2nd marriages). So, from the Catholic perspective, the ordinations are not “illicit.”

Their ordinations are considered perfectly licit within the Orthodox context, however, the Orthodox clergy do not have “the clerical state” within the Catholic Church.

(on coffee break, won’t be back for several hours).

This is, in fact, what I understood (but not necessarily what I communicated) was meant by illicit: not within the RCC. But capable of conveying grace.

Thank you.

GKC

 

[FrDavid96]

This sentence

Their ordinations are considered perfectly licit within the Orthodox context, however, the Orthodox clergy do not have “the clerical state” within the Catholic Church.

Should have read

Their ordinations are considered by the Catholic Church perfectly licit within the Orthodox context, however, the Orthodox clergy do not have “the clerical state” within the Catholic Church.

As originally written, it seemed to say that the Orthodox consider their own ordinations to be licit. Well, that goes without saying. The point was to say that the Catholic Church also considers them to be licit because the Church considers Orthodox canon law to be legitimate and binding on the Orthodox faithful

 

[FrDavid96]

So, is the only issue then (for orthodox Anglicans) really just the ordination (perceived) problem? I realize the validity of the sacraments is in question, but that is related directly to the ordination problem.

First, it’s not a perceived problem. It’s a reality that the Anglican attempts at ordination are null and void.

All the other questions flow from that. Apostolic Succession is necessary not only for valid sacraments, but for the community itself to be truly be a Church–not just to be named as such, but to actually exist as a Church. That’s why the situations of the Orthodox and the Anglicans are fundamentally different.

It’s not that the question is reduced to one of “valid sacraments or not?” but that the presence and practice of valid sacraments is essential to the entire life of the community.

 

[GKC]

This sentence

Their ordinations are considered perfectly licit within the Orthodox context, however, the Orthodox clergy do not have “the clerical state” within the Catholic Church.

Should have read

Their ordinations are considered by the Catholic Church perfectly licit within the Orthodox context, however, the Orthodox clergy do not have “the clerical state” within the Catholic Church.

As originally written, it seemed to say that the Orthodox consider their own ordinations to be licit. Well, that goes without saying. The point was to say that the Catholic Church also considers them to be licit because the Church considers Orthodox canon law to be legitimate and binding on the Orthodox faithful

I read it as intended. But thanks again.

GKC

 

[GKC]

First, it’s not a perceived problem. It’s a reality that the Anglican attempts at ordination are null and void.

All the other questions flow from that. Apostolic Succession is necessary not only for valid sacraments, but for the community itself to be truly be a Church–not just to be named as such, but to actually exist as a Church. That’s why the situations of the Orthodox and the Anglicans are fundamentally different.

It’s not that the question is reduced to one of “valid sacraments or not?” but that the presence and practice of valid sacraments is essential to the entire life of the community.

This, in essence, is what I also responded.

And certainly, the RCC considers Anglican orders null and void.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Everyone,
My question to all of you is: How does the RCC (officially and unofficially) view the Eastern Orthodox churches? It doesn’t seem as though the RCC is as far apart with their leaders as they are with many Protestant groups (probably because there are less theological differences).

A sort of secondary issue is: Why doesn’t the RCC (I could be wrong) view conservative Anglicans in the same camp as Eastern Orthodox churches?

Basically, I am just interested in understanding how the Church views these two very large and very ancient groups that seem to share many theological views.

Additionally, for those of you who are EO or Anglican (or used to be), how do many Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans (again, conservative) view the RCC?

Thanks again!

Justin

Hi jinc1019.

Good questions, but I think you should also question the fundamental assumptions when we speak of the “RCC’s view of Anglicans”. It would be quite artificial to compile the Vatican’s various statements about Anglicans and then treat it as if the Vatican had said “Here’s our view of Anglicans.” (I’m just thinking out loud here.)

But that aside, I think the reason you’ll have trouble finding your specific answers come down to this: dialogue with the Anglicans hasn’t gone well, it’s true (e.g. WO); but despite that, the Vatican has never said “It’s time we just forget about dialogue with the Anglican Communion as a whole.” If the Vatican did do that, you would undoubtedly soon receive a lot of info indicating how the Vatican feels about this kind of Anglican or that kind of Anglican.

 

[jinc1019]

First, it’s not a perceived problem. It’s a reality that the Anglican attempts at ordination are null and void.

From the Roman Catholic perspective, yes. I don’t necessarily believe that just because the Pope and his bishops say one thing is true that it necessarily is. If I did, I would be Catholic. I was just curious what the position was.